O M G.
The page log for User:Thekohser.. Criticism from "banned users" is not allowed, even confined to a user talk page.
It doesn't seem to be a majority position among administrators, but it doesn't matter, because all it takes is one admin who takes the hardest line, and it's done, and is left done.
That we, the great unwashed, cannot see what was in that edit, isn't considered a problem, because They Are The Community. Not us. Other administrators will see the edit, and few will be bold enough to restore it, even if it was harmless. For all I know, that was anti-Kohs vandalism.... I pointed out here, a few days ago, where "‎(RD3: Purely disruptive material)" was used to cover material that would have been allowed for any non-banned editor, that would even have been considered constructive, by itself. By allowing such uses, by not standing up to them, administrators, then, allow the public to believe that all uses of RD are suspect.
That is why the rules for RD, which are stated more strongly than any other rules I've seen, are so strict. Then admins like Kww and Timotheus Canens drive a truck through the loophole, and if other admins don't stand up to this -- which requires becoming aware of it! -- the loophole widens and demolishes transparency and trust.
I have no idea if NawlinWiki is a white hat or black hat admin. I'm pointing to a process flaw.
Anyway, this sequence is amusing, see
history of User talk:Thekohser, etc.
11:26, 13 April 2011 Come gather around (talk | contribs)
(edit summary removed)11:27, 13 April 2011 SineBot (talk | contribs) m (4,590 bytes) (Signing comment by Come gather around - "Come gather ’round people wherever you roam And admit that the Kool Aid around you has phoamed")
13:50, 13 April 2011 Tnxman307 (talk | contribs) blocked Come gather around (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ ({{checkuserblock}})
14:36, 13 April 2011 NawlinWiki (talk | contribs) changed revision visibility of "User talk:Thekohser": removed content, edit summary for 1 revision ‎ (RD3: Purely disruptive material)
The revision deletion did not remove the content, apparently, because of the signbot addition.
This content still shows, it would be, at least, the last paragraph of the edit, but is probably the whole thing:
QUOTE
Come gather ’round people wherever you roam And admit that the Kool Aid around you has phoamed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Come gather around (talk • contribs) 11:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
and the original edit summary is also shown in signbot's edit:
QUOTE
m (Signing comment by Come gather around - "Come gather ’round people wherever you roam And admit that the Kool Aid around you has phoamed")
This is what NawlinWiki thinks should be Revision Deleted.
Come gather aroundÂ
(T-C-L-K-R-D)
was blocked, and as far as I can tell, just for this edit. But it's a "checkuserblock." There is an increasing trend for checkusers to use their tools and act independently. He's not disclosing what he knows. This could be legitimate, as what passes for legitimate on Wikipedia, if the user were evading a ban. Otherwise, remember, Wikipedia tolerates even gross vandalism, but tolerates criticism as little as possible. One strike and you are out.
11:26, 13 April 2011 Okay, two strikes, but no warning.As with the other edit, signbot's edit allowed the edit to remain. My guess is that Tnxman307 simply saw that
844724m0nÂ
(T-C-L-K-R-D)
and Come gather around were likely the same editor. The blocks are not really the big issue here, but revision deletion, which makes it all hidden. The loss of transparency is not worth the gain of hiding what we can see was being hidden. Speaking as a now-experienced troll, whenever they revision-delete, I win, since my goal is to smoke out the jackboots. RBI doesn't bother me, because it is, on the face, legitimate, and leaves in place the possibility that someone will see my edit and bring it back in, thus improving content. That, in fact, is the theory behind self-reversion.
(At least initially, I confined myself to good edits. I'm trolling with fresh fish, not rotten bait, to see who or what is panting to grab it and go into a frenzy. As a blocked editor, I certainly can't complain about being blocked for block evasion. But I may -- and am -- reporting excessive force, where damage results to innocent editors and to content. That is a piece of value that I can contribute as a blocked editor that I could not really contribute as an unblocked one, without setting up piles of argument and evidence -- precisely what got me banned by ArbComm and others. One demonstration is worth a thousand words.)
There was a warning for Come gather around, 13:15, 13 April 2011, but it was useless, the account was blocked anyway with no more edits. The warning was incorrect, the edit was not reverted. It is still there, courtesy of signbot.
NawlinWiki's block log. Wow.
NawlinWiki revision deletes the edits that are the basis for his blocks.
NawlinWiki's deletion log.NawlinWikiÂ
(T-C-L-K-R-D)
According to his user, page, over 170,000 edits. He's in a category, "Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests." We've already seen an example of his discretion.
Tireless contributor or loose cannon? Or both?